back to article We're free in 3... 2... 1! Amazon unhooks its last Oracle database, nothing breaks and life goes on

Amazon has turned off its final Oracle database, completing a migration effort that has involved "more than 100 teams" in the consumer biz. Amazon's cloudy unit, AWS, regularly takes a pop at enterprise database vendors while promoting its own Relational Database Service (RDS), which offers Aurora (MySQL and PostgreSQL …

  1. EU time zones

    "Involved over 100 teams". Wonder what the cost of that migration was, and what the ROI might be.

    Amazon has a history of taking the long view about ROI, but for the rest of us, cost-of-change is a very big consideration.

    1. Dinanziame Silver badge

      for the rest of us, cost-of-change is a very big consideration.

      And Oracle knows it well... Which is reflected into their support prices

    2. Velv

      Every journey starts with a single step.

      Stop using Oracle for new things "because we use it now". Target something different and in time your journey will take you off the Oracle path.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Unfortunately, dropping Oracle usage in small increments over time doesn't result in matching savings. You have the cost of delivering and supporting the new RDBMS while Oracle license costs look exactly the same year on year as usage drops by 10/25/40%.

        Oracle licensing may be predatory and avaricious but...actually there is no 'but'.

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          It shouldn't really be does as a black-ops project but it might have to start as such (cf. how YouTube convinced the internet to stop using Internet Explorer 6) with a proof of concept. I suspect that the vast majority of any company's databases does nothing special and could migrated to another system with a dump/load. The rest will, of course, take research, planning and costing but the savings can quickly become substantial once you stop having to buy licences for everyone in the company on all their devices.

          If Oracle is required for "mission critical" stuff then work around it. Once you can demonstrate functional equivalance without the licensing costs for some projects, it should be possible to draw up a high-level analysis that quotes Amazon as having done the same thing already. Going to the "cloud" will probably be mentioned and any references to this new form of lock-in are likely to fall on deaf ears, because "cloud" sound a lot like "lower headcount" to a PHB.

          Note, as soon as Oracle finds out that something like this is in the offing they'll launch the sales droids with FUD bombs to try and frighten people off, so you must have functional equivalence for backup/restore, etc. But, also, once you've moved one proper application you can also start asking for rebates.

          At the end of the day, there should be nothing wrong in keeping some stuff in Oracle if it really is the best tool for the job. The problem is that Oracle needs to learn that that is what they have to provide and not Faustian contracts.

        2. Wayland

          It's not necessarily about money but strategy and policy. Being locked in is not a good position. What is learned in the process of migration maybe more valuable than the cost. Propitiatory solutions can mean an advantage but when I see statements such as "AWS does not have database technology as capable as ours" it assumes that Amazon is even using those capabilities.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "Stop using Oracle for new things"

        Which means your data risks to be duplicated, not properly updated, and get out of sync, if not worse.

        For many companies, the data themselves are far more valuable then the technology managing it.

    3. Ima Ballsy

      Informix to Postgres ...

      I did a Informix to Postgres conversion for a branch of our state government.

      IBM wanted us to continue to run Informix on a Mainframe at a cost of about 5,000.00 USD per month,

      or by a 'Core' VMWARE license for 5000,000 - 1,000,000 one time plus maintenance.

      It took me about a year to do the conversion and testing. About 230 tables converted, 80 functions and 175 triggers.

      Did most of the work writing python programs to convert about 70 - 80% of the stuff for me.

      Hope this gives you an idea.

      From what the forums say, converting from Oracle to Postgres is not that big of a deal ..

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: Informix to Postgres ...

        The commas are a little confusing on the VM Ware licences.

        Did you spend you spend all your time doing this? In which case it's presumably savings after the first year or so?

        Oracle -> PG is tried and tested and EnterpriseDB means you can keep most of your "stored procedures" aka Oracle lock-in bombs.

        1. Ima Ballsy

          Re: Informix to Postgres ...

          Sorry, heads down in writing python programs to generate Web pages from Postgres tables for FLASK.

          Anyway, it was 500,000 USD to 1,000,000USD (Half to a full Million) depending on what options we wanted.

          They even quoted a power based appliance instead of the VMWARE license for close to the high figure ....

          1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

            Re: Informix to Postgres ...

            Web pages from Postgres tables for FLASK.

            You know you really want to be using Pyramid. Has some lovely fine-grained controls for the DB connection… ;-)

        2. Ima Ballsy
          IT Angle

          Re: Informix to Postgres ...

          Had to go back to our intervals timeline ..

          Started POC conversion Jan 2016, finished March 2016 (Includes writing conversion programs and scripts (90 days of about 6 hours a day).

          Ran testing conversion August 2016 - April 2017, which included testing BY Q&A (off and on - a lot of testing done by Q&A)

          Converted our first court instance May 2017. Completed all conversions of 20 existing courts by December 2017.

          So, it would be safe to say 1 person converted a enterprise system to Postgres by themselves in less than a man year

          Most of the work I automated with python (Hey, I'm a lazy programmer / DBA - what can I say ...)

          1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

            Re: Informix to Postgres ...

            500,000 USD to 1,000,000USD

            Equates to around 2 to 4 top-notch DBAs for a year so you were saving money from the start. Of course, a full analysis would cover what compromises (say reports), if any, you had to make and whether you got any additional benefits.

            Most of the work I automated with python (Hey, I'm a lazy programmer / DBA - what can I say ...)

            But that's the best kind. The beancounters love automation but they often don't understand the kind of people it takes to get it.

    4. rcxb Silver badge

      Amazon has a history of taking the long view about ROI, but for the rest of us, cost-of-change is a very big consideration.

      Amazon had a major PR motive in eating their own dog-food, and quickly. If you just wanted to get off of Oracle quickly, you can do a more modest conversion to EnterpriseDB, with its Oracle PL/SQL compatibility layer (on top of PostgreSQL).

    5. katrinab Silver badge

      I would imagine the ROI will be very good, because not only do they save Oracle licencing fees, the work they did enables them to sell their own products as a viable Oracle alternative.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The really funny thing... that, back in the 1980s when Oracle was a relatively small new company struggling to expand and make a name for itself, it competed against the likes of IBM and DEC by stressing its portability.

      I remember DEC sales support people complaining how hard it was to persuade customers to buy Rdb when Oracle salesmen kept arguing, "What if you decide to move off VAX/VMS? Oracle runs on 43 (or whatever) platforms".

      We DECcies all thought the joke about how Oracle runs best on a slide projector hilarious, but it didn't cut much ice with the punters. So zillions of customers bought Oracle, secure in the knowledge that they could easily switch OS and hardware whenever they wanted to.

      And about 5 percent of them ever did.

      1. Hans 1

        Re: The really funny thing...

        And about 5 percent of them ever did.

        Oh, so, 95% of Oracle customers are on VMS/VAX VMS/PA-RISC, HP-UX/PA-RISC, Irix/SGI etc, then ?

    7. Arthur Daily

      Choose your DB Carefully - Evaluation Matrix

      Old school guy here. Once upon a time we did software product evaluation matrixes that included technical support, cost of ownership(including testing environments) and vendor pricing reputation.

      Experienced hands made few mistakes. Nowadays management sorts use Magic Circle Gartner reports to pick winners - or have some consultancy to make a recommendation - that had no financial consequences for them. Maybe only Walmart and Amazon fire those responsible for negative ROI outcomes.

      Then Microsoft invented TOC, only cost of ownership, that never included yearly licence fee hikes, and optimum factors that worked for their marketing hype. But experienced evaluation people got the flick, as salesdroids targeted the decision makers with a budget. Game over.

      Then Adabas/Natural DB started to Oracle their remaining declining customer base. One manager coined the expression bushranger tactics. IBM Mainframe users were astounded by vendor aggression. Most never bickered over price increases, when capacity management experts were made redundant.

      Back to Oracle. Their tools for emergencies and business restoration were bullet proof. That won them business over DB2. People buying MS SQL Server never thought that far ahead. Then Oracle stated to do a Software AG trick - antagonise their reference sites.

      Then came the Cloud - AWS and Cloudtastrophies. My tip to new players is never buy a product that allows auditors to set foot on site or steal your usage numbers. Greed never changes, so pick solutions where blackmail is less likely. OpenSource spinoffs are reliable enough.

      If vendors won't licence or work with AWS, avoid them and pick another.

    8. P. Lee

      If you don't scale much, proprietary software can make sense, but you really need to be clear on requirements rather than dev preferences.

      I did have to laugh about AWS railing against lock-in. Hello Pot! Nice of you to comment on that whistling sound!

      If you want to save money, manage your asset inventory well and make the right thing to do, the easy thing to do.

  2. Blockchain commentard

    Unlike Aurora

    "Databases like Oracle and SQL Server are expensive, high lock-in and proprietary." pot, kettle, black?

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Unlike Aurora

      Which is compatible with MySQL/Maria DB and PostgreSQL.

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: Unlike Aurora

        That's a nice AWS setup you've got there, would be a pity if something were to happen to it.

        All the cloud vendors have a vested interest in making it easy to check in but difficult to leave their data hotels.

        And their engagement with open source is often only as far as it serves their narrow, commercial requirements.

      2. ibmalone

        Re: Unlike Aurora

        I suppose I could read up, but since it's only curiosity... how can it be compatible with both? Do they mean it provides API so you can pretend it's one or the other, or is this about importing / exporting data, schemas and stored procedures?

        1. Thomas 6

          Re: Unlike Aurora

          It's compatible with either, not both. You have to specify which engine compatibility you want on setup.

          1. ibmalone

            Re: Unlike Aurora

            Thanks :)

      3. Rainer

        Re: Unlike Aurora

        Ever installed it on premise?

    2. blazewon22

      Re: Unlike Aurora

      Exactly! Try migrating out after spending years to get on the platform. I'm taking my lead from Walmart which doesn't try to get you to pay for their IT systems with AWS.

      1. TheVogon

        Re: Unlike Aurora

        Quite. At least if you migrate to SQL Server in Azure you can always bring it back on prem. If you migrate to GCS or AWS databases you are stuck there.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Unlike Aurora

      Meh, SQL Server is almost always WAY cheaper than Oracle. And are a less unpleasant company to have to deal with.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Unlike Aurora

        Less unpleasant in the same way cow shit is less unpleasant than pig shit, but are still both shit.

      2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: Unlike Aurora

        SQL Server is still playing catch up with Oracle and DB2, which is why it can afford to / has to be cheaper. To some it's still the "new kid on the block" but if you look at the cost of licences for other MS "enterprise" products, they have a distinctly "Oracle" feeling about them.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Unlike Aurora

          Catchup of which features? (honestly curious)

    4. deadlockvictim


      At the 2018 Re:Invent conference in Las Vegas, AWS CEO Andy Jassy said: "The world of... the old-guard commercial-grade databases has been a miserable world for the last couple of decades for most enterprises... Databases like Oracle and SQL Server are expensive, high lock-in and proprietary."

      I thought something similar: unlike Amazon Prime, for example.

      We lock you in but we don't wanted to be locked in. Apparently it's not a good thing (unlike Amazon Prime).

  3. Spanners Silver badge
    Big Brother

    "database technology that comes close to the capabilities of the Oracle database"

    That would be capabilities of generating Corporate profit for Oracle then...

  4. blazewon22

    More Unicorn Poop

    This sounded like a pissing match between some big egos. In the end Amazon still uses Oracle for some of its functions. Most of us don't have the luxury of unlimited resources including capital and labor to make the transition. We can't find the skills to have people run open source databases and AWS "services" and if we do we certainly can't keep them.

    I'd rather lock in to a company that has a proven track record, a huge labor pool, and enterprise class support versus a company that tells you to just build it. As the old saying goes "If it ain't broke..."

    1. Swedish Chef

      Re: More Unicorn Poop

      You are Larry Ellison and I claim my £5.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: More Unicorn Poop

        I'd rather use literally anyone than Oracle. If only we were able to score products down on a procurement agreement for using an Oracle backend, unfortunately we can't so there is always a risk that it will sneak in. However for a pure DB backend that we specify, I am not going to steer down the Oracle Canal again.

    2. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. Duncan Macdonald

      Re: More Unicorn Poop

      Support - Oracle ??????

      Proven track record in demanding ever more money from its victims (customers).

      The very high cost of Oracle software was one of the main reasons for the rise of non-proprietary databases.

    4. Zippy´s Sausage Factory

      Re: More Unicorn Poop

      As a former Oracle developer who has transitioned to MS SQL Server, I can tell you that Oracle is broken. (To be fair, I have a nagging suspicion that all major RDBMS products are broken in quite significant, soul-crushing ways, I just haven't risked my sanity by testing it yet.)

      1. Julz

        Re: More Unicorn Poop

        There are usually a few edge cases that no sane person would want to explore.

        1. AndyD 8-)₹

          Re: More Unicorn Poop

          "There are usually a few edge cases that no sane person would want to explore."

          ... and a lot of them involve NULLs

    5. Lee D Silver badge

      Re: More Unicorn Poop

      The decision to initially use Oracle is where the mistake lies.

      As more and more people realise this, less and less people will use it.

      It's all very well saying "but it's too expensive to change now", but it's literally never going to get any cheaper... it's as simple as that. You will have to pay that transition charge at some point, as well as the higher annual subscriptions and whatever other costs in the meantime.

      Sure, it's not easy or cheap to up sticks and leave, but it won't be any cheaper tomorrow either. Continuing down that path is how people end up in bankruptcy, companies in administration, and banks clinging to outdated technology "because it's too old to change now and we can't find people to do it".

      Oracle is a stupid decision. It's that simple. If you're tiny, it's *always* been stupid. If you're mid-size, it may have been understandable at one point but otherwise stupid. If you're seriously large - as this shows - it was still stupid.

      You can continue to propagate the stupid decision into the future with excuses, or you can say "it was stupid, and now we're trapped" and realise that one day you'll have to do the exact same thing people are telling you to do now anyway.

      I honestly judge any company whose IT department happily use, recommend or support Oracle.

    6. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: More Unicorn Poop

      Interestingly, it very clearly states in the article:

      AWS evangelist Jeff Barr reports ... migrated to AWS database services.

      If we look at AWS database services we find:

      Relational Database Service (RDS), which offers Aurora (MySQL and PostgreSQL compatible), PostgreSQL, MySQL and MariaDB, as well as Oracle and SQL Server.

      So it would seem that what has happened is that Amazon the company are no longer running Oracle on their private internal IT systems. Instead they are using their public AWS database services and paying accordingly. Obviously, whilst doing this some DB's were migrated away from Oracle.

      Does any one have a breakdown (ie. numbers) of which AWS database service those "nearly 7,500 Oracle databases" were migrated to?

    7. TheVogon

      Re: More Unicorn Poop

      "Still uses Oracle". Yes for third party software only. You can bet that it's on the disinvest list.

    8. rcxb Silver badge

      Re: More Unicorn Poop

      Most of us don't have the luxury of unlimited resources including capital and labor to make the transition.

      Amazon had a major PR motive in eating their own dog-food, and quickly. If you just wanted to get off of Oracle quickly, you can do a more modest conversion to EnterpriseDB, with its Oracle PL/SQL compatibility layer (on top of PostgreSQL).

      Most programs just use some standard database connector library that can easily be swapped out from Oracle to PostgreSQL in a few lines of code in one spot, and a parallel database dump from one and import into the other.

      We can't find the skills to have people run open source databases and AWS "services" and if we do we certainly can't keep them.

      Oracle databases don't just run themselves... They need 100X more expertise, optimization, care and feeding than user-firendly open-source databases like PostgreSQL or MySQL/MariaDB. I know this from years of miserable experience with some big ones... No doubt you can find a consultant to setup and maintain your open source database product for a fraction the cost of your oracle license fees, not to mention your oracle consultant's fees.

  5. Giovani Tapini

    I still dont see anyone choosing Oracle for new build services

    I come across it a fair bit, but like Amazon its because some vendor only works with it. I cant recall anyone I know starting something new with it, and I've been around a long time..

    Are there people out there that do?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I still dont see anyone choosing Oracle for new build services

      Yes, not as a standalone build but where there's a UDL and in house capability it's quicker to expand Oracle than to build and certify something new.

      1. A.P. Veening Silver badge

        Re: I still dont see anyone choosing Oracle for new build services

        Quicker I can see, but is it smarter? Or cheaper?

        1. Roland6 Silver badge

          Re: I still dont see anyone choosing Oracle for new build services

          >but is it smarter? Or cheaper?

          Its all relative...

          If the business already has a load of XYZ experts and management just want the system in then typically it is wise to utilise those experts and implement using XYZ; your project is more likely to achieve its deadlines and budget targets than would otherwise be the case.

          The fun and games start when a company for various reasons have two (or more) camps, such as IBM mainframe DB2 and Unix/Oracle and you work for an integrator with a team of dev's primarily skilled in MS SQL-Server...

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I like Postgres, a nice easy step from "Horr-acle"

    Still a long way to go but after 20 years as an Oracle DBA, I'm really digging Postgres, it's very familiar in feel and a lot of PG's features map nicely to those in Oracle. At the very least Postgres beats SQL Server hands down for concurrency, SQL Server is an object locking festival on speed, I've never worked on a DB like SQLSvr for such draconian locking. And lLet's not even get started with "(nolock)" that every dev thinks is so great, yeah until you commit to using the data you got off those dirty-reads and the base trx gets rolled back!!

    1. 9Rune5

      Re: I like Postgres, a nice easy step from "Horr-acle"

      The snapshot isolation level provides you no relief with sql server?

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: I like Postgres, a nice easy step from "Horr-acle"

      Welcome aboard! The familiarity is, of course, no really a coincidence as back in the mists of time they were both based on the same project at Berkeley.

      And I think experienced Oracle DBAs are going to help make Postrges even better. In the last 10 years it's got so much better largely due to the input (both in source code and comments) of seasoned industry professionals.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I like Postgres, a nice easy step from "Horr-acle"

        What is a seasoned professional? What seasoning is applied, and would it wash off? Would marinating not be enough?

        OK, that was "definitely* not sugar..

        1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

          Re: I like Postgres, a nice easy step from "Horr-acle"

          One who's witnessed more than one fuck up and managed to learn from it. No one starts out knowing how to do the stuff properly.

          As opposed to someone equipped with sales manuals full of buzzwords…

          1. Aitor 1

            Re: I like Postgres, a nice easy step from "Horr-acle"

            C´mon, fuck ups in Oracle? You are triggering me.

        2. deadlockvictim

          Re: I like Postgres, a nice easy step from "Horr-acle"

          By 'marinating', I take you mean the BOFH-sense of the word.

          Reginald D. Hunter commented to a crowd in England (although it could have been Ireland) that they drank the way Americans ate. Do Americans pre-eat before they go to a restaurant?

    3. Julz

      Re: I like Postgres, a nice easy step from "Horr-acle"

      The locking scheme in Ingress in the old days was pretty awful.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I like Postgres, a nice easy step from "Horr-acle"

      You must be using VERY old versions of SQL Server. SQL has outperformed PG in large active databases by circa an order of magnitude for at least 5 years now.

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: I like Postgres, a nice easy step from "Horr-acle"

        Performance doing what precisely? Postgres is generally considered to have excellent support for concurrency but is acknowledged to have not the best write performance, though changes in the last few releases have seen significant improvements there.

        But in any particular test (OLAP/OLTP) it's going to come more down to the ability of the DBA to configure the system correctly than any inherent DB features: if you don't know what they are or how to control them, they aren't going to help much.

    5. pan2008

      Re: I like Postgres, a nice easy step from "Horr-acle"

      Really, you know nothing about SQL Server. Also have you checked tran isolation levels (set to no locks), columnstore indexes in sql server, tables always in memory etc etc.

    6. pan2008

      Re: I like Postgres, a nice easy step from "Horr-acle"

      Really you know nothing. SQL server transaction isolation level can be set to no locking if you want, does postgress, oracle have columnstore indexes, always in memory tables if you wish? How's the query optimisation btw? I can continue with tabular design

  7. Daedalus

    Oldie but goodie mispront

    Scrawled on a cave wall was the legend "Be careful not to type 'now' when you mean 'not'!!"

    See article sub-headline.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I wonder how much amazon pays amazon for aws services....

    1. katrinab Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      Their tax accountants will work out the most suitable number.

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        There's lots of PR in demonstrating that Amazon pays the same as anyone else and chooses AWS because it's the "best" solution. But beyond that, and any accounting niceties, it also suits Bezos management style as a stick to beat suppliers and internal departments.

  9. Bruce Ordway

    old-guard commercial-grade databases

    Database customers living in "a miserable world for the last couple of decades"?

    Most of what I know about databases (which is not much) I learned while working with one specific ERP application as it has evolved.

    It started out with Unidata (HPUX) in the 80's, moved to OpenEdge(Windows) in the 90's and finally switched to MS SQL around 2010.

    Along the way I formed my very subjective opinions about each..

    - Unidata was the hardest to use but use of disk space was efficient, it could scale up and still run fast, required little maintenance and licensing was simple.

    - OpenEdge was a little easier to use, took up more disk space, ran slower, was low maintenance with straightforward licensing.

    - MS SQL easiest to use, more disk space and slower, higher maintenance and licensing is a real pain. (and more likely to run into weird issues).

    Where generally I like MS SQL while I'm working with data, as an end user.. but as an admin, dislike everything about it.

    On the other hand, I really appreciated the ease of maintaining OpenEdge, and using it was "somewhat acceptable".

    When looking back on Unidata today, I'm in awe of it's speed/efficiency... and I wonder "what if" it had just been a little easier to use?

    1. dak

      Re: old-guard commercial-grade databases

      I started out on Pr1me Information (a PICK implementation) which we migrated to UniVerse (UniData's current sibling) on SunOS by exporting and importing. It worked instantly without any changes at all.

      Bloody brilliant database and much easier to use than Oracle/SQL Server/DB2.

    2. The Pi Man

      Re: old-guard commercial-grade databases

      Wow! I’d forgotten Unidata was that old! I started on ADDS Mentor, General Automation and Microdata Reality, and then Unidata on Motorola running Sys V.3.

      Ahh.. Happy days...

  10. LeahroyNake


    They are using as much free / open source as possible and giving what back?

    I'm sure there have been several articles on the Reg and Ars etc discussing their packaging up of code and selling it as a service.

    Maybe / hopefully some of the new licenses that Elastic etc are using will stem the flow but it doesn't look good for the startups trying to compete.

    I have made a total of 2 code pull requests (minor translation issues for a language that has less that 1M speakers), one was accepted the other was accepted after an alteration I'm crap at coding but thought I should try to help. If I though this was going to help amazon I probably wouldn't have bothered.

    Good one sticking it to Oracle but are Amazon any better?

  11. astounded1

    By The Time Larry Migrates To The Database In The Sky...

    Oracle itself will be on an accelerating shrinking path because the people who are so stuck on not changing it are also on the wane. At 75, Larry needs to find an out. He needs legacy that extends beyond a basketball naming rights deal on a shiny new toy building in S.F.

    He needs a winning cloud strategy - but, wait! - he's already lost that race and can never recover. Karma is a hard Mother when you have been auditing your customers and sticking it to them for years. The old capture and exploit routine because Larry knows it's hard to break free - but it's getting easier by the day.

    What to do?

    Get Microsoft to buy you. It's his only face-saving out.

    Also, best wishes to Mark Hurd and I mean that. He's having a very tough go on the health front.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Given Oracle's history...

    They'll still be billing AWS in 2025.

    When challenged, they'll say... "Don't you have some backups of your Oracle DB somwhere in the archives?"

    The sooner Oracle goes belly up the better IMHO

    1. The Pi Man

      Re: Given Oracle's history...

      Based on last weeks shenanigans by Oracle against Merula, AWS are responsible for unpaid licences for anyone running Oracle stuff on their platform!

  13. John Savard


    "Oracle first, SQL Server second and AWS third"? I can't believe I'm hearing this. Where's DB2? And I guess that's not counting all the people who are using Postgres, Maria, MySQL, or whatever and not having to pay money to anyone, except for hardware. That Oracle - and IBM, for that matter - might have capabilities that are far ahead of anything either Amazon or open-source software can provide, though, is quite possible, but not everyone who needs a database needs those capabilities.

  14. Kev99 Silver badge

    We had an agency in Hamilton County that bought into Oracle's promises and migrated everything over to it. Too bad Oracle was not compatible with the rest of the county's financial and personnel systems. Plus, as soon as one their Oracle oracles got proficient, they jumped ship for 50% to 100% more pay, leaving the agency in constant turmoil. Personally, I'd never use the cloud for anything other than something for airplanes to fly thru or bring precipitation, but I'd gladly switch to open source products. Beside, Larry Ellison is already a billionaire several times over.

  15. Danny 2

    Is Amazon Unstoppable?

    There is a great article on Amazon on The New Yorker. It's not techie but it is in-depth and worth reading, covering the dick-pics, union busting, and everything in between.

    1. Clinker
      Thumb Up

      Re: Is Amazon Unstoppable?

      Thanks for the link. Readers beware, it's a looong read.

  16. MatsSvensson

    There's no need for that.

    It's all very quiet.

    It's just internal switching.

    Really? No one's ever switched off a Oracle database before.


    Whoa, shit!

  17. Bronek Kozicki

    Two options

    You either design for lock-in, or for change. If you do not make the choice, then (by Hyrum's law) you only have the first option.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like